I hate when supposed car reviewers are more interested in being glib then doing a good job of reviewing. Remarking on the steering being at all numb without saying if it had servotronic or not indicates ignorance of the real details about the car. Is the steering "passable yet still too numb" as compared to other 4 wheel drives or rear wheel drive (which it seems like they are comparing to), and honestly no one else has complained about the hydraulic steering. It sounds like yet another car reviewer more interested in making statements to sound smart then providing useful and as objective as possible information. I don't give much credence to auto reviews with rare exceptions for reviewers I respect.

Fwiw they blame the stopping distance on the 'low rolling resistance tires', no details about them or their condition of course and without any comparison to back that up with or info about the actual brakes.

I think there a two factors potentially affecting the stopping distances:

BMW seems to have switched to low-dust pads, likely reducing performance. I'll just stick with the BMW pads as long as maintenance is free.

I haven't seen any reviews of the M Sport package meaning all of these test vehicles have LRR all-season run-flats. I don't expect the Goodyears EfficientGrips to be much better but the Pirelli summers should be. I'd expect the newer Bridgestone Potenza S001s to perform better and the non-RFT Michelin PSS to be even better.

Funny, C&D's first drive review of the X1 was really positive and even more factual, very much in line with all the other rags. These latest reviews do seem like they're trying too hard to be "hard-hitting journalism." Oh well, guess we should all just enjoy our rides, despite their long-ish braking numbers, conflicted tall wagon/hatch/SUV silhouette, and numb steering.

I just don't understand why the bad word on the C&D reviews. Alright I understand 189 ft stopping is far from good but why poke fun of it by calling it "(just) stops shorter than a school bus"? Let's see other test; in the Focus ST vs GTI test the GTI that is much smaller and lighter and with all season PERFORMANCE TIRES did 187 ft, oh snap NEAR SCHOOL BUS!
In the 4 bang family sedan compo Passat, Accord and Altima with lighter non-awd does 184-185 ft, oh dear! I never know 70% car out there are actually not brake much better than a school bus!
By the way their testing of 328i sportline automatic did 191 ft!!! Yet no mention about it. So late BMW brakes have issues but why talk it down on X1 so much??

I should start thinking about trade mine to a school bus, wonder if they have free maintenance?

I really think the review is an outlier because it's a really high number compared to other reviews. Also, it's a S28i, which explains the steering complaints.

It is x28i not s28 so the steering feel should be better. I think the writer already have the concept that the new BMW steering = bad; and didn't realize the fact that the x1 use the good old system. Of course the eco tires doesn't help too.
Motortrend also have a poor brake number (keep in mind however motor trend use 60-0 while c&d use 70-0) so it is BMW problem, but is it really so so so poor like they wrote?

I just don't understand why the bad word on the C&D reviews. Alright I understand 189 ft stopping is far from good but why poke fun of it by calling it "(just) stops shorter than a school bus"? Let's see other test; in the Focus ST vs GTI test the GTI that is much smaller and lighter and with all season PERFORMANCE TIRES did 187 ft, oh snap NEAR SCHOOL BUS!
In the 4 bang family sedan compo Passat, Accord and Altima with lighter non-awd does 184-185 ft, oh dear! I never know 70% car out there are actually not brake much better than a school bus!
By the way their testing of 328i sportline automatic did 191 ft!!! Yet no mention about it. So late BMW brakes have issues but why talk it down on X1 so much??

I should start thinking about trade mine to a school bus, wonder if they have free maintenance?

Good points

Quote:

Originally Posted by kychungkevin

It is x28i not s28 so the steering feel should be better. I think the writer already have the concept that the new BMW steering = bad; and didn't realize the fact that the x1 use the good old system.

Why I find it lame that he doesn't even note if it has servo or not, which would actually be relevant, or compare to other 4 wheel drive BMWs or otherwise.

Yeah but its a BMW- known (or once known) for performance, its braking should be very good to exceptional for the class but instead the results were middling at best- ('12 CR-V does the feat in 175, CX-5?- 172). Yes, they've overblown it with the title and my only issue with that is they blatantly excused an even worse number for the 328 yet gave it another win and another 10 best- was it really worthy this time?

I just don't understand why the bad word on the C&D reviews. Alright I understand 189 ft stopping is far from good but why poke fun of it by calling it "(just) stops shorter than a school bus"? Let's see other test; in the Focus ST vs GTI test the GTI that is much smaller and lighter and with all season PERFORMANCE TIRES did 187 ft, oh snap NEAR SCHOOL BUS!
In the 4 bang family sedan compo Passat, Accord and Altima with lighter non-awd does 184-185 ft, oh dear! I never know 70% car out there are actually not brake much better than a school bus!

....it took an excruciating 189 feet to stop from 70 mph—a pickup-like performance, courtesy of its low-rolling-resistance tires.

The F30 suffered similar poor braking reviews with low rolling resistance tires (and good reviews with performance summer tires). It seems that the Pirelli Cinturato P7 Summer and Bridgestone Potenza S001 perform much better (even though Pirelli advertises the P7 Summer as LRR). M sport owners with staggered setups should also benefit from more rubber in the back.

M sport owners with staggered setups should also benefit from more rubber in the back.

All your other points are valid, but this one. Most cars (those that don't have 65% of the weight on the back, ie 911's) use about 90% front brake / 10% rear under full braking, so rear tire width plays nearly zero role in braking. Straight line traction and more understeer are the "benefits" of BMW's staggered tire sizing, but braking advantages are not one of those advantages.

The simple fact is that the US F30 328i and E84 28i are underbraked and have US spec pads that underwhelm. It's certainly helped by grippier tires, but those don't solve the problem, and I'd suspect, on the track, would actually more quickly expose this issue. BMW has gone the route of Honda with their brakes on these two cars.

Along with straight line traction comes increased stability and friction when braking.

I believe BMW makes staggered setups standard on all vehicles with increased top-speed limiter. Square setups get limited top speed. IMO, only true M-cars are ready for the track without modification. 3-series and X1s should not be tracked. I'm pretty sure everyone here is buying the X1 for the street only.

Along with straight line traction comes increased stability and friction when braking.

I believe BMW makes staggered setups standard on all vehicles with increased top-speed limiter. Square setups get limited top speed. IMO, only true M-cars are ready for the track without modification. 3-series and X1s should not be tracked. I'm pretty sure everyone here is buying the X1 for the street only.

I'm not arguing that. I've also owned a number of M and non M cars with staggered tires and find it to be purely cosmetic. I'd greatly prefer a 235 or 245 square setup to the staggered setup offered. I also think just about every BMW sold in the US (not the smaller engines for the ROW) has been speed limited for a good while, but I know what you're getting at, the difference in a 130 and a 155 mph governor.

Again, you could put 335's on back and you wouldn't noticeably alter stopping distanced, I'd predict that the added weight would help more than the actual additional traction, which as stated, is extremely low in a stopping situation when the vast majority of the dynamic weight is transferred to the front brakes. One common fallacy to BMW's silly marketing of the benefits of a 50/50 weight balance is that cars with a rearward biased balance get better traction and braking than cars that are so called "balanced".

They tested one, just one, vehicle, a vehicle other magazines and such probably also tested and abused. The data would be more useful if they had bought the vehicle they tested new off of a dealer's lot, although it would still be just one example.

As possibly the only owner to have both the All-Season P7 (18s square) and the Summer P7 (18s staggered) fitted on their vehicle back to back, I felt a noticeable difference in braking feel and performance (almost rear-ended a lady braking for no apparent reason on a mile long off-ramp in the All-Seasons). The poor braking reviews are the fault of the fitted review tires. If anyone ever reviews an M Sport with the summer P7s I expect the results will be far different.

Although Red Bread respectfully disagrees with me, I do believe the extra rubber on the back of the staggered M Sports help with braking. I read some posts on the Porsche and Corvette forums that support this view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nospam

I was so unsatisfied with the P7 All-Seasons that I headed back to the dealer Monday. They corrected the problem and replaced the wheels and tires with the proper staggered wheels and Summer P7s. Oh, what a difference...night and day!

The confidence in cornering I had when test driving has returned. I've also noticed an improvement in braking (as suspected). Understeer has not been a problem. I don't plan to test the handling limits any more extremely than I have so far, so understeer is no longer a concern of mine.

I am happy enough with the Summer P7s that I will not get rid of the runflats. I also don't want to give up cargo space for the donut.

In my opinion, it is better to run Summer tires and get a separate set of winter tires if your climate dictates it. The all-seasons are a compromise in every sense of the word.

The compound difference will certainly offer improvements. I still hold by stagger offering no benefit to a front biased car (not 911's) in anything but trail braking situations, which I suspect isn't what we're talking about.

Impressive. I wonder what a set of old school BMW pads combined with summer tires would provide?

It's too bad their doesn't seem to be any aftermarket pads for the factory brake hardware of the newer BMWs. I used to fit my E46 and E39 with Axxis/PBR Ultimate Street Pads, better performing but no dustier than the OEM pads of that day.

It's too bad their doesn't seem to be any aftermarket pads for the factory brake hardware of the newer BMWs. I used to fit my E46 and E39 with Axxis/PBR Ultimate Street Pads, better performing but no dustier than the OEM pads of that day.

I may have spoken too soon. I remember reading that the E84 shares brake components with the E9x and there are aftermarket pads and rotors for those brakes. It likely will just take a while for most websites to update their systems.

Either way, I'll just stick with the OEMs since they are free under maintenance.